DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:1610.05670V2 [Cs.CL] 3 Aug 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:1610.05670V2 [Cs.CL] 3 Aug 2017 Stylometric Analysis of Early Modern Period English Plays Mark Eisen1, Santiago Segarra2, Gabriel Egan3, and Alejandro Ribeiro1 1Dept. of Electrical and Systems Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA 2Inst. for Data, Systems, and Society, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA 3School of Humanities, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK Editor: Abstract Function word adjacency networks (WANs) are used to study the authorship of plays from the Early Modern English period. In these networks, nodes are function words and directed edges between two nodes represent the relative frequency of directed co-appearance of the two words. For every analyzed play, a WAN is constructed and these are aggregated to generate author profile networks. We first study the similarity of writing styles between Early English playwrights by comparing the profile WANs. The accuracy of using WANs for authorship attribution is then demonstrated by attributing known plays among six popular play- wrights. Moreover, the WAN method is shown to outperform other frequency-based methods on attributing Early English plays. In addition, WANs are shown to be reliable classifiers even when attributing collaborative plays. For several plays of disputed co-authorship, a deeper analysis is performed by attributing every act and scene separately, in which we both corroborate existing breakdowns and provide evidence of new assignments. 1 Introduction Stylometry involves the quantitative analysis of a text’s linguistic features in order to gain further insight into its underlying elements, such as authorship or genre. Along with common uses in digital forensics (De Vel et al., 2001; Stamatatos, 2009) and plagiarism detection (Meuschke and Gipp, 2013), stylometry has also become the primary method for evaluating authorship disputes in historical texts, such as the Federalist papers arXiv:1610.05670v2 [cs.CL] 3 Aug 2017 (Mosteller and Wallace, 1964; Holmes and Forsyth, 1995) and the Mormon scripture (Holmes, 1992), in a field called authorship attribution. Such disputes exist regarding the collection of dramatic works produced in England during the Early Modern era, covering the 16th through mid-17th century. Due to factors such as inaccurate publication information on title pages and undocumented collaborations, the precise authorship of many of these plays–including works by William Shakespeare and John Fletcher–remains highly contested. 1 Stylometric analysis of the work from this time period dates as far back as the nineteenth century in F. G. Fleay’s analysis of verse features in Shakespeare’s plays (Fleay, 1878). Similar analyses based on the manual counting of linguistic features continued throughout the early to late twentieth century (Timberlake, 1931; Oras, 1960; Tarlinskaja et al., 1987). Computer-based techniques for counting the frequency of various stylistic features, such as rare words or phrases, have become very common over the past few decades. The most recent work done in evaluating authorship in Early Modern era drama includes that by MacDonald P. Jackson (Jackson, 2003, 2006), Brian Vickers (Vickers, 2002), and Hugh Craig and Arthur Kinney (Craig and Kinney, 2009), each of whom studied the works of Shakespeare and his contemporaries extensively using computational stylometry techniques. The techniques used in modern authorship attribution began almost a century ago by examining sentence lengths in texts to determine authorship (Yule, 1939). Mosteller and Wallace (1964) were the first to consider function words as important stylistic markers in stylometric analysis, producing unprecedented results. As such, function words have continued to be common in analysis techniques (Argamon and Levitan, 2005; Juola, 2006) due to their context independence and ubiquity at high rates of occurence in English language texts. These methods rely mainly on the frequency of usage of function words. Numerous other stylistic features have since been used in authorship attribution studies, including vocabulary richness (Holmes, 1991; Hoover, 2003) and parts-of-speech (Cutting et al., 1992). Our method for attributing texts, developed in (Segarra et al., 2015), also measures function word usage to distinguish author styles. Rather than only considering word frequencies, however, we consider a more complex relational structure in an author’s usage of function words. We construct word adjacency networks (WANs) with function words as nodes, and edges containing information regarding the use of two function words within a certain distance (measured in intervening words) from one another. We interpret each WAN as a Markov chain that assigns transition probabilities to the appearance of two function words in succession, derived from their actual occurrences in succession at varying distances within the securely attributed texts. Thus, these probabilities stand for the author’s expressed preference for following one particular word with another. We can then quantify similarity between WANs by using a measure of relative entropy. Markov chains have previously been used in (Khmelev and Tweedie, 2001) and (Sanderson and Guenter, 2006) for the purposes of authorship attribution, though neither consider the use of function words. Results in (Segarra et al., 2015) show an increase in attribution accuracy compared to frequency-based methods for general texts of English literature. In this work we perform further validation of the method’s performance specifically on plays from the Early Modern period and compare this performance to that of word frequency-based methods previously used in Shakespeare attributional studies. We then employ this new technique to comment on authorship disputes concerning Early Modern English dramatic works. 2 We first present an overview of the construction and comparison of WANs in Section 2. We discuss in Section 3 the main playwrights used in our analysis as well as the construction of their profile networks, and in Section 4 we present a measure of similarity between profiles. As a validation of the method, in Section 5 we perform a stylometric analysis of the complete undisputed works of our six primary playwrights, followed by a comparison with existing methods in Section 5.1. We are able to demonstrate high attribution accuracy in discriminating between six candidate authors. We then examine the use of WANs in determining authorship of plays known to be written by multiple authors in collaboration. This is first done by analyzing entire plays in Section 6 and then through extensive interplay analysis of a set of particularly controversial plays in Section 7. Our results largely corroborate existing theories regarding these plays and, in some cases, propose new divisions of labor. 2 Word Adjacency Networks When doing authorship attribution, we are given a set of candidate authors A = fa1; a2; : : : ; ang and a set of known texts written by each of these authors, and the objective is to correctly attribute a collection of texts of unknown authorship among the authors. In (Segarra et al., 2015, 2013), we propose an authorship attribution method based on function word adjacency networks. For each text, we can construct a word adjacency network (WAN) of function words. These include prepositions, conjunctions, pronouns, auxiliary verbs, and articles that convey only grammatical relationships between the so-called lexical words that carry meaning. Formally, from a given text t we construct the network Wt = (F; Qt) where F = ff1; f2; :::; ff g is the set of nodes composed by a collection of function words and Qt is a similarity measure between ordered pairs of function words. The similarity function Qt measures the directed co-appearance of two function words. Once we en- counter a particular function word, Qt indicates the likelihood of encountering another one in the few words following the first one. More precisely, to compute Qt we first divide the text t into units of consecutive h h words (e.g. sentences, speeches) st where h ranges from 1 to the total number of units. We denote by st (e) the word in the e-th position within unit h of text t. Moreover, we consider that two words in the same unit are related if they are at most D 2 N positions apart and the relation between words decays with their position difference according to a discount factor α 2 (0; 1). In this way, with I{·} denoting the indicator function, we define D X h X d−1 h Qt(fi; fj)= I st (e) = fi α I st (e + d) = fj ; (1) h;e d=1 h for all fi; fj 2 F . The selection of the decay parameter α, the window size D, and the delimiting units st , in general, may vary based on the texts and authors being considered. In this work, we select α = 0:75 and D = 10, determined in (Segarra et al., 2015) to be generally optimal and robust parameter choices. However, 3 because punctuation marks were often added by publishers rather than the authors themselves (Howard, 1930), and because dramatic characters do not necessarily speak in sentences, when applying our method to Early Modern plays (rather than novels) we use individual speeches (rather than clauses or sentences) as the units into which we break our texts. We then generate a profile network Wc = (F; Qc) for every author ac using the WANs from those texts (c) known to have been written by the corresponding author ac. Formally, if we denote by T the set of texts written by author ac, then the similarity function Qc of the profile is computed as X Qc = Qt: (2) t2T (c) The similarity function Qc depends on the number and length of the texts written by author ac. This is a problem since we aim to compare profiles of different authors whose canons will be of differing sizes. Thus, we apply the following normalization to the similarity measures ^ Qc(fi; fj) Qc(fi; fj) = P ; (3) j Qc(fi; fj) for all fi; fj 2 F . In (3) we assume that the combined length of the texts written by author ac is long enough to guarantee a non-zero denominator for a given number of function words jF j.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Christopher Marlowe and the Golden Age of England
    The Marlowe Society Christopher Marlowe and the Research Journal - Volume 05 - 2008 Golden Age of England Online Research Journal Article Michael J. Kelly Christopher Marlowe and the Golden Age of England Poet, spy and playwright, Christopher Marlowe was the embodiment of the Elizabethan Golden Age. Marlowe’s work was the product of his ‘Erasmian,’ or Christian humanist, education, the state of affairs in England and his own ability and readiness to satirize the world around him. Marlowe and his fellow contemporaries were a testament to the development of English drama, its pinnacle at the end of the English Renaissance and its eventual decline and suppression at the outbreak of the English Civil War. Their work is historically important because it illustrates, in addition to the development of English theatre, the dramatic political and social events of the time through the public medium of the playhouse. Specifically, the development of the theatre helps explain key features of the English Renaissance such as the creation of English self-identity, adoption of humanistic ideal, the advancement of English over Latin, the role of religion, the intellectual development of a people and parliament and their gradual alienation from the monarchy, the ultimate assertion of parliamentary power, and Civil War. Furthermore, the development of commercial playwriting, acting, stage management and private investment in theatres, an aspect of life today taken for granted, began during this Golden Age in English drama. The history of English playwriting and performance stretches back to at least the ninth century trope ‘Alle Luia’ sung at Easter masses. However, post-classical Christian ritual performance itself probably developed from the ritualistic repetitions of the Empirical Roman Senate.1 This tradition, established in the Church at some point during the early formation of Roman successor states, likely spread to England from Spain, via Ireland, through missionaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Notes Introduction 1. Andrew Gurr, The Shakespearean Stage, 1574–1642, 3rd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 191. 2. For further discussion of the myth of the bare stage see Chapter 1 of this book; Jonathan Gil Harris and Natasha Korda, ‘Introduction: Towards a Materialist Account of Stage Properties’, in Jonathan Gil Harris and Natasha Korda (eds.), Staged Properties in Early Modern English Drama (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 2–7. 3. Aristotle Poetics (trans. Stephen Halliwell) (London: Harvard University Press, 1995), VII.16–20, p. 55. 4. Glynne Wickham, ‘Heavens, Machinery, and Pillars in the Early Theatre and Other Early Playhouse’, in Herbert Berry (ed.), The First Public Playhouse: The Theatre in Shoreditch, 1576–1598 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1979), p. 6. 5. Thomas H. Dickinson (ed.), Robert Greene (London: Fisher Unwin, 1911), pp. lix–lxi. 6. Kenneth Muir, ‘Robert Greene as Dramatist’, in Richard Hosley (ed.), Essays on Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama in Honor of Hardin Craig (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963), p. 48; Charles W. Crupi, Robert Greene (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1986), p. 115; Charles Mills Gayley, Representative English Comedies (London: Macmillan, 1903), p. 419. 7. Bernard Beckerman, Shakespeare at the Globe, 1599–1609 (New York: Macmillan, 1962); Gerald Eades Bentley, The Professions of Dramatist and Player in Shakespeare’s Time, 1590–1642 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); T. J. King, Shakespearean Staging, 1599–1642 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971); Andrew Gurr, Playgoing in Shakespeare’s London, 3rd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); S. P. Cerasano, ‘Editing the Theatre, Translating the Stage’, Analytic and Enumerative Bibliography, 4 (1990), pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Romeo at the Rose in 1598
    Issues in Review 149 66 Beeston is one of six men at the Red Bull named in an order for repair of the high- ways by the theatre, dated 3 October 1622; see Bentley, The Jacobean and Caroline Stage, 1.169 n.2. As he had managed Queen Anne’s Men there, and returned there with them after the 1617 riot, it appears that he owned, and continued to own, the theatre. 67 For ‘bifold appeal’ see discussion in Rutter, Work and Play, 110. 68 Exceptions include the Red Bull Revels’ Two Merry Milkmaids, at court in 1619/20, and Gramercy Wit in 1621; see Bentley, The Jacobean and Caroline Stage, 1.173. Romeo at the Rose in 1598 In two plays of the Lord Admiral’s Men — Englishmen for My Money and The Two Angry Women of Abingdon — echoes of Romeo and Juliet appear.1 The first performances of Englishmen took place at the Rose in 1598. Two Angry Women is likely to have played at the same venue in the same year. What may these echoes tell us about the ethos and practices of the Lord Admiral’s Men, about the dramatists who wrote for them, and about the company’s place in the literary and dramatic milieu of the time? I want to argue that the presence of these echoes reveals a degree of inte- gration into urban literary fashion. And I will also suggest that some of the company’s playwrights exhibit the kind of knowing playfulness that was soon to characterize the repertory of the children’s companies and which was already shaping the satires and epigrams to reach print publication at this time.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNE BARTON Anne Barton 1933–2013
    ANNE BARTON Anne Barton 1933–2013 IN 1953 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY, then, as now, one of the two leading academic Shakespeare journals in the world, published an article concisely titled ‘Love’s Labour’s Lost’.1 The list of contributors identified the author as ‘Miss Bobbyann Roesen, a Senior at Bryn Mawr’, who ‘is the first under- graduate to contribute an essay to Shakespeare Quarterly. She attended the Shakespeare Institute at Stratford-upon-Avon in the summer of 1952 and hopes to pursue graduate studies in Renaissance literature at Oxford or Cambridge.’2 Looking back forty years later, the former Miss Roesen, now Anne Barton, had ‘a few qualms and misgivings’ about reprinting the article in a collection of some of her pieces. As usual, her estimate of her own work was accurate, if too modest: As an essay drawing fresh attention to a play extraordinarily neglected or mis- represented before that date, it does not seem to me negligible. Both its high estimate of the comedy and the particular reading it advances are things in which I still believe. But, however influential it may have been, it is now a period piece, written in a style all too redolent of a youthful passion for Walter Pater.3 Undoubtedly influential and far from negligible, the article not only continues to read well, for all its Paterisms, but also continues to seem an extraordinary accomplishment for an undergraduate. There is, through- out, a remarkable ability to close-read Shakespeare carefully and with sus- tained sensitivity, to see how the language is working on the page and how 1 Bobbyann Roesen, ‘Love’s Labour’s Lost’, Shakespeare Quarterly, 4 (1953), 411–26.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Shakespeare Accessible to the High School Student: a Study of Language and Relationships in Hamlet and the Taming of the Shrew
    Making Shakespeare Accessible to the High School Student: A Study of Language and Relationships in Hamlet and The Taming of the Shrew Virginia Kay Jones INTRODUCTION Having taught for over thirty years at an inner city high school, I have tried not only to shape my curriculum to my students‘ needs but also to make the study of British literature relevant to my students‘ lives. The teaching of Shakespeare is always a challenge. I have taught Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, The Taming of the Shrew, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and Hamlet—all with varying degrees of success. For the past few years, Hamlet has been my focal point for the spring semester of senior English. Although my students enjoy the play—often stating that it is the first Shakespearean play that they have liked—I feel that I can do more than what I am doing. By just reading and discussing a play, a student cannot appreciate the essence of the work. My students love language. They can improvise rap and create beautiful poetry with little prompting. However, they are afraid to tackle Shakespeare. I intend to design a unit that will make the study of Shakespeare more accessible to my students by helping them ―come to terms‖ with the language. My students also love to act, so I want to teach Shakespeare with a more performance-based approach. Additionally, I want to expose my students to Shakespearean comedy as well as tragedy. A unit designed around the theme of relationships (male-female, sibling, and parent-child) is the thread to connect Hamlet and The Taming of the Shrew and make them more relevant to today‘s students.
    [Show full text]
  • VII Shakespeare
    VII Shakespeare BRETT GREATLEY-HIRSCH, PETER J. SMITH, ELISABETTA TARANTINO, DOMENICO LOVASCIO, SHIRLEY BELL, CHRISTIAN GRIFFITHS, KATE WILKINSON, SHEILAGH ILONA O’BRIEN, AND LOUISE POWELL This chapter has three sections: 1. Editions and Textual Studies; 2. Shakespeare in the Theatre; 3. Criticism. Section 1 is by Brett Greatley- Hirsch; section 2 is by Peter J. Smith; section 3(a) is by Elisabetta Tarantino; section 3(b) is by Domenico Lovascio; section 3(c) is by Shirley Bell; section 3(d) is by Christian Griffiths; section 3(e) is by Kate Wilkinson; section 3(f) is by Sheilagh Ilona O’Brien; section 3(g) is by Louise Powell. 1. Editions and Textual Studies Readers will, I hope, forgive the relative brevity and narrow scope of this section as a necessary consequence of accepting the YWES brief three-quarters into the year. To avoid piecemeal, superficial treatment of the full range of this year’s offerings in Shakespearean textual studies, I limit my focus to a more manageable section of scholarship: studies in authorship attribution and the apocrypha. My discussion thus excludes a great deal of interesting and important work across a field whose vibrancy and rapid evolution is reflected by the range of topics brought together in Margaret Jane Kidnie and Sonia Massai’s Shakespeare and Textual Studies (CUP). My capacity as interim caretaker of this section similarly does not allow me to give the third edition of The Norton Shakespeare (Norton) and three impressive monographs — Laura Estill’s Dramatic Extracts in Seventeenth-Century English Manuscripts (UDelP), Judith Milhous and Robert D.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamlet (The New Cambridge Shakespeare, Philip Edwards Ed., 2E, 2003)
    Hamlet Prince of Denmark Edited by Philip Edwards An international team of scholars offers: . modernized, easily accessible texts • ample commentary and introductions . attention to the theatrical qualities of each play and its stage history . informative illustrations Hamlet Philip Edwards aims to bring the reader, playgoer and director of Hamlet into the closest possible contact with Shakespeare's most famous and most perplexing play. He concentrates on essentials, dealing succinctly with the huge volume of commentary and controversy which the play has provoked and offering a way forward which enables us once again to recognise its full tragic energy. The introduction and commentary reveal an author with a lively awareness of the importance of perceiving the play as a theatrical document, one which comes to life, which is completed only in performance.' Review of English Studies For this updated edition, Robert Hapgood Cover design by Paul Oldman, based has added a new section on prevailing on a draining by David Hockney, critical and performance approaches to reproduced by permission of tlie Hamlet. He discusses recent film and stage performances, actors of the Hamlet role as well as directors of the play; his account of new scholarship stresses the role of remembering and forgetting in the play, and the impact of feminist and performance studies. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS www.cambridge.org THE NEW CAMBRIDGE SHAKESPEARE GENERAL EDITOR Brian Gibbons, University of Munster ASSOCIATE GENERAL EDITOR A. R. Braunmuller, University of California, Los Angeles From the publication of the first volumes in 1984 the General Editor of the New Cambridge Shakespeare was Philip Brockbank and the Associate General Editors were Brian Gibbons and Robin Hood.
    [Show full text]
  • King Richard III: Updated Edition Edited by Janis Lull Frontmatter More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-73556-8 - King Richard III: Updated Edition Edited by Janis Lull Frontmatter More information THE NEW CAMBRIDGE SHAKESPEARE general editor Brian Gibbons associate general editor A. R. Braunmuller, University of California, Los Angeles From the publication of the first volumes in 1984 the General Editor of the New Cambridge Shakespeare was Philip Brockbank and the Associate General Editors were Brian Gibbons and Robin Hood. From 1990 to 1994 the General Editor was Brian Gibbons and the Associate General Editors were A. R. Braunmuller and Robin Hood. KING RICHARD III King Richard III is one of Shakespeare’s most popular and frequently performed plays. Janis Lull’s introduction to this new edition, based on the First Folio, emphasises the play’s tragic themes – individual identity, determinism and choice – and stresses the importance of women’s roles in the play. It also underscores the special relationship between Richard III and Macbeth, demonstrating that the later tragedy re-examines issues raised in the earlier one. A thorough performance history of stage and film versions of Richard III shows how the text has been cut, rewritten and reshaped by directors and actors to enhance the role of Richard at the expense of other parts, especially those of the women. This updated edition contains a new introductory section covering recent criticism and performances – including the RSC cycles of the history plays – of this perennially popular play. The notes define the play’s language in terms easily accessible
    [Show full text]
  • Douglas Bruster
    DOUGLAS BRUSTER Mody C. Boatright Regents Professor in American and English Literature Distinguished Teaching Professor Department of English, 1 University Station B5000 The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712-1164 512.471.3635 (Office) ● 512.550.3465 (Mobile) [email protected] CURRICULUM VITAE EDUCATION ______________________________________________________________________________ 1990 Harvard University Ph.D. (English) 1987 Harvard University M.A. (English) 1985 University of Nebraska B.A. (English, History, Latin) ______________________________________________________________________________ APPOINTMENTS ______________________________________________________________________________ 2009- The University of Texas at Austin 2008 Université de Paris X (visiting professor) 1999-2008 The University of Texas at Austin 1995-99 The University of Texas at San Antonio 1991-95 The University of Chicago 1990-91 Harvard University ______________________________________________________________________________ PUBLICATIONS ~ BOOKS _____________________________________________________________________________ v Shakespeare and the Power of Performance: Stage and Page in the Elizabethan Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. With Robert Weimann. v To Be or Not To Be. London and New York: Continuum, 2007. v Prologues to Shakespeare’s Theatre: Performance and Liminality in Early Modern Drama. London and New York: Routledge, 2004. With Robert Weimann. v Shakespeare and the Question of Culture: Early Modern Literature
    [Show full text]
  • Doing Wrong with Just Cause? a History of Julius Caesar 3.1.47-48 by M. L. Stapleton and Sarah K. Scott Relative to Some Of
    Doing Wrong with Just Cause? A History of Julius Caesar 3.1.47-48 by M. L. Stapleton and Sarah K. Scott Relative to some of its fellows in the First Folio, the text of Julius Caesar appears at first glance to present few problems for editors and commentators. There are no troublesome quartos with readings that diverge wildly from the copy text. There is no incomprehensible “I see that men make rope’s in such a scarre” (AWW 4.2.38 / 2063). Nor does the play provide a spectacular opportunity to illuminate a passage with the mere substitution of a few letters, such as Lewis Theobald’s extension of Mistress Quickly’s pastoral conceit as she describes Falstaff in extremis, his “’a babbl’d” for the Folio’s “a Table of greene fields” (H5 2.3.16-17 / 839). However, in our work on the New Variorum edition of the play—compiling a commentary, collating editions, and writing performance appendices—we have found that the 1623 text cannot be described as problem-free.1 Twenty-first century textual scholars tend to advise against emendation for sensible, if doctrinaire reasons. Surely no one would wish to violate a play’s textuality or deny her students the opportunity to purchase a multi-version Hamlet or Lear, a deprivation they would surely see as an impediment to their quest for knowledge. Yet many of our predecessors, even those of a fairly conservative bent such as Capell or Dr. Johnson, might well find such reasons for nonintervention ridiculous: or, as they spell one of their favorite euphemisms for strong disapproval, “surprizing.” Eighteenth and early nineteenth-century editors especially engage in somewhat ferocious combat about many passages in Julius Caesar.
    [Show full text]
  • The Private Theaters in Crisis: Strategies at Blackfriars and Paul’S, 1606–07
    ABSTRACT Title of Document: THE PRIVATE THEATERS IN CRISIS: STRATEGIES AT BLACKFRIARS AND PAUL’S, 1606–07 Christopher Bryan Love, Ph.D., 2006 Directed By: Professor Theodore B. Leinwand, Department of English This study addresses the ways in which the managers and principal playwrights at second Paul’s and second Blackfriars approached opportunities in the tumultuous 1606–07 period, when the two troupes were affected by extended plague closures and threatened by the authorities because of the Blackfriars’ performance of offensive satires. I begin by demonstrating that Paul’s and Blackfriars did not neatly conform to the social and literary categories or commercial models typically employed by scholars. Instead, they were collaborative institutions that readily adapted to different circumstances and situations. Their small size, different schedules, and different economics gave them a flexibility generally unavailable to the larger, more thoroughly commercial adult companies. Each chapter explores a strategy used by the companies and their playwrights to negotiate a tumultuous theatrical market. The first chapter discusses the mercenary methods employed by the private children’s theaters. Occasionally, plays or play topics were commissioned by playgoers, and some performances at Paul’s and Blackfriars may even have been “private” in the sense of closed performances for exclusive audiences. In this context, I discuss Francis Beaumont’s The Knight of the Burning Pestle (Blackfriars, 1607), in which Beaumont uses the boorish citizens George and Nell to lay open the private theaters’ mercenary methods and emphasize sophisticated playgoers’ stake in the Blackfriars theater. The second chapter discusses the ways private-theater playwrights used intertextuality to entertain the better sort of playgoers, especially those who might buy quartos of plays.
    [Show full text]
  • Departament De Filologia Anglesa I Alemanya
    DEPARTAMENT DE FILOLOGIA ANGLESA I ALEMANYA PROPUESTA METODOLÓGICA PARA UNA EDICIÓN CRÍTICA EN FORMATO DIGITAL DE SHAKESPEARE: TITUS ANDRONICUS COMO EJEMPLO. JOSE FRANCISCO SAIZ MOLINA UNIVERSITAT DE VALÈNCIA Servei de Publicacions 2010 Aquesta Tesi Doctoral va ser presentada a València el dia 6 de juliol de 2010 davant un tribunal format per: - Dr. Miguel Ángel Conejero Tomás Dionís-Bayer - Dr. Cándido Pérez Gállego - Dra. Pilar Ezpeleta Piorno - Dra. Laura Monrós Gaspar - Dr. Juan Vicente Martínez Luciano Va ser dirigida per: Dr. Vicente Forés López ©Copyright: Servei de Publicacions Jose Francisco Saiz Molina Dipòsit legal: V-3433-2011 I.S.B.N.: 978-84-370-7980-6 Edita: Universitat de València Servei de Publicacions C/ Arts Gràfiques, 13 baix 46010 València Spain Telèfon:(0034)963864115 PROPUESTA METODOLÓGICA PARA UNA EDICIÓN CRÍTICA EN FORMATO DIGITAL DE Shakespeare: Titus Andronicus COMO EJEMPLO TESIS DOCTORAL Departamento de Filología Inglesa y Alemana Facultad de Filología, Traducción y Comunicación Presentada por: JOSÉ SAIZ MOLINA Dirigida por: DR.VICENTE FORÉS LÓPEZ Valencia, Mayo 2010 Copyright °c 2010, José Saiz Molina Valencia PROPUESTA METODOLÓGICA PARA UNA EDICIÓN CRÍTICA EN FORMATO DIGITAL DE Shakespeare: Titus Andronicus COMO EJEMPLO por José Saiz Molina Tesis Doctoral Presentada en el Departamento de Filología Inglesa de la Facultad de Filología, Traducción y Comunicación como parte de los requerimientos para la obtención del título de Doctor en Filología Universidad de Valencia Mayo 2010 iv El Dr. Vicente Forés López, como director del trabajo de investigación realizado por el doctorando Don José Saiz Molina, certifica que el presente documento es la versión última y definitiva de la tesis titulada: Propuesta metodológica para una edición crítica en formato digital de Shakespeare: Titus Andronicus como ejemplo.
    [Show full text]